Alex Salmond wants details of his local income tax plans kept secret so he is
spared “lurid headlines” about the controversial policy, according to court
papers lodged by his taxpayer-funded lawyers.

Legal papers submitted to Scotland’s highest civil court, and passed to the Daily Telegraph, show the First Minister is concerned about the publicity that would result if a confidential document about the plans was published.

Alex Salmond's lawyers have said he wants to be spared 'lurid headlines' over his local income tax plans

Mr Salmond has fought for two years to prevent this newspaper seeing the document, which was written by Dr Andrew Goudie, his chief economic adviser, in January 2009.

The following month John Swinney, the SNP finance minister, announced he was postponing the local income tax plans beyond next week’s Holyrood election and blamed opposition parties for the delay.

Mr Salmond has since announced plans to reintroduce it in 2016, but his lawyers argue in their submission to the Court of Session that the secret document, which spells out the financial implication of his plans, continues “to influence thinking”.

They claim that Dr Goudie’s 2009 analysis is not “of historical interest only” and should not be published so SNP ministers can continue to work on the policy “safe from the threat of lurid headlines”.

But Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s Information Commissioner, who has seen the document, challenged the First Minister to publish it so Scots can understand why he really delayed the policy’s introduction.

Mr Salmond has gone to the Court of Session twice at a cost to the public purse of more than £80,000 to try and block publication and his latest legal move means the document will not be published until well after next Thursday’s election.

However, this newspaper has already revealed Dr Goudie told the First Minister the tax would cost families 50 per cent more this year than he promised.

Iain Gray, Labour’s Holyrood leader, said: “These papers are explosive. Now we see that this expensive cover-up is all to save Mr Salmond’s from embarrassment.

“He doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on but is spending taxpayer’s money to save himself from ‘lurid headlines’. But the really damning part is that these documents show the threat of local income tax is alive and well.”

Annabel Goldie, Scottish Tory leader, added: “Ever since the SNP scrapped its plans to hammer Scotland with a local income tax in the last Parliament, they had a duty to tell the public the unpalatable truth. As I said before, this smells of fish, fish, fish.”

Following a two-year fight, Mr Dunion ordered the document be handed to this newspaper by the end of last month but Mr Salmond instead lodged a second appeal at the Court of Session.

The papers, written by Murray Sinclair, a Scottish Executive solicitor, argue Mr Dunion “erred in law” by ruling it was in the public interest the document be published.

“The critical fact was that that January 2009 projection (the document) continued to influence thinking both before and after ministers decided to delay the introduction of legislation,” he wrote.

“The document remained of current and ongoing relevance to policy formation and was not, for example, superseded data that might be of historical interest only.”

He argued ministers must be able to engage in “full and frank” exchanges and require “the time and space to explore options and hammer out policy safe from the threat of lurid headlines”.

But, in his response to the submission, Mr Dunion argued the public interest outweighed Mr Salmond’s desire to keep the information under wraps.

A submission to the court by Anderson Strathern Solicitors, acting on behalf of the commissioner, states: “There is a public interest in the information (being published) in the context of understanding why the decision was taken to delay the introduction of proposed local income tax legislation.”

The solicitors told the court the document should be made public in circumstances “where the decision has been taken to defer introduction of proposed legislation for at least two-and-a-half years and only if re-elected”.

This meant it was “highly improbable” that publishing the information would inhibit discussions between ministers, they concluded.